How to turn politicians on to science

Fortunately there's an induction programme to take them through everything they need to know, from where the canteen is to how to get a parliamentary email account. This year, for the first time, science was on the agenda too.

The idea came about when Adam Afriyie, the shadow science spokesperson in the last parliament, asked POST to run training sessions for new Conservative MPs, covering everything from the scientific method to the use and abuse of statistics.

POST has seen five new parliaments and two changes of government since it was created in 1990. This was the first time anyone had suggested we should organising training for new MPs, so we were keen to take it on, as long as it was open to MPs from all parties.

Planning the event was quite a challenge: how should we pitch it so that it didn't patronise new MPs who already knew something about science, but at the same time did not go straight over the heads of non-scientists?

In the end we put together a panel to talk to new MPs around the theme of "science, uncertainty, evidence and policy" (POST is not known for its punchy titles).

The first session took place on Tuesday. Around 25 MPs signed up and just under half actually came, which isn't bad considering the hectic schedules of new MPs.

It wasn't a science lesson in the conventional sense. The only similarity with a lesson was that a very loud bell rang half way through. Unfortunately for us, it was a division bell, which meant we lost all the MPs for a while as they dashed to the chamber to vote.

Since the general election, there have been fears that science - and evidence-based policy making as a whole - would suffer now there are fewer MPs with science backgrounds. The loss of well-known MPs such as Evan Harris, who were actively engaged in science issues, has also been a blow.

David Willetts told the MPs that he had been struck by the number of new MPs in parliament who were clearly proud of their science backgrounds.

And Phil Willis was keen to point out that science was more relevant to constituents today than it ever had been, he said. For any MP faced with a science-related issue to say "I'm not a scientist and I will leave that to others" was simply "not good enough".

Willis also argued that MPs cannot afford to ignore science, because "good policies come from having an evidence base to back them up".

However, as Willetts pointed out, "While policies should of course be evidence-based, MPs are not elected simply to look at evidence, but also on the basis of commitments made in their manifestos."

Willetts was optimistic that the coalition government would be good for evidence-based policy "as there will be more questioning and criticism internally".

These and other comments from the panel generated a lively and varied debate. The discussion flowed from volcanic ash and genetic modification of insects, through to David Willetts' recent book.

Many questions from new MPs were not new, but still very topical. For example, one member asked about the decline of public trust in scientists, triggering a debate about the importance of transparency and of communicating scientific uncertainty.

Another raised concerns over the media's handling of the debate over genetic modification. Synthetic biology was flagged up as an area which might give rise to similar public debate in future. All were keen to ensure that the mistakes of the GM debate were not repeated.

The discussion also touched on how ethics should be incorporated into evidence-based policy making, and what kind of scientific advice parliamentary staff should be providing to MPs.

On the whole, our first "science lesson" for MPs gives reason to be positive about how science will fare in the new parliament.